Talk:Peter Zeihan

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Peter Zeihan as edited by RobSmith (talk | contribs) at 03:07, March 2, 2025. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Zeihan is not an "analyst". He's a salesman. And he sold the creator of this article, lock stock and barrel. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 12:48, August 10, 2023 (EDT)

User: Conservative's 1st response

Key point: RobS, you cited an article by Brian Wang entitled Peter Zeihan Makes Bad Predictions With Bad Premises which concedes: "I will agree that Zeihan has decent population pyramid analysis and some of his other analysis and problem identification is useful."

Furthermore, Peter Zeihan supporters say in the comments:

Key point: "And how is Mr. Zeihan looking now Brian? Did you read The Accidental Superpower which he wrote in 2014? Did you notice the section of the book where he said within 8 years Russia will (while it’s Army is still young enough) make run at Ukraine? Well guess what? It’s 2022 buddy. Turn on your TV. Zeihan has been incredibly accurate on many fronts. I think you need to find a new career path."

"I like that you’ve taken up the mantle against Zeihan. But I’m not reading arguments that take Zeihan seriously, here.

One example is the small segment “If US Withdraws its Military?”: You wrote, “Nextbigfuture does not believe that the US only gets involved in managing the world purely out of economic self-interest.” This is not a counterpoint to Zeihan, this is in accordance with Zeihan.

Zeihan doesn’t argue that the US secures trade routes out of economic self-interest. This is a mischaracterization of his arguments. Zeihan argues that the US started securing international trade as a bribe to gain allies against the Soviets back when that was relevant. That was the only reason. The US puts its navy out on the seas, without charging for its services, to gain enthusiastic allies who would gladly defend against the Soviets on the land border. There was no other major reason why the US proposed Bretton Woods.

Now, that reason no longer exists, so the US should, LOGICALLY, pull out its 70 year-old security agreement. The Soviet threat has passed. For twenty years we’ve been trying to keep alive a dead corpse of an agreement purely out of status quo. Now, gravity is kicking back in. THAT is Zeihan’s argument in short.

If you read his book carefully, he is not happy about these projections. His personal politics are almost the exact opposite of all his projections.

I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt when I clicked on this article. You straw-man him about half."

"Zeihan is pretty specific about where he predicts conflict and disorder. And, it is a far cry from general global disorder. And, those countries running mercantilist trade policies with their economies highly dependent on exports are likely losers. Germany is high on the list. Whether he is correct; we will see. And, I have not seen in any of his videos a discussion of the US relinquishing control of the oceans. But, definitely a much more selective use of force depending on our interests and our “allies” holding up their end of the bargain. Along with more favorable trade relations if they want our support. And, a greater hands off posture letting the locals sort(fight) it out and weighing in as it serves our interests. Much as we did in the conflict between Iran and Iraq."

"He has been more right than you have Brian and unlike you he can follow transportation tonnages (do the math on what is shipped into and out of China by ship vs rail vs truck). He never said that China would break up, what he said was that Xi would chose Mao style isolationism that political and economic fracturing of China, since China is solely reliant upon an international order ran by the U.S. that the U.S. no longer needs or wants since they subsidize the world.

What happens to China if Iranian oil is removed from the global market and the U.S. embargoes Iran to insure they are not able to sell any of that oil to China or anyone else? America’s go to option for punishing foreign countries are sanctions, followed by embargoes followed by blockades if the embargo does not crush the country."

RobS, you wrote:

"I predict Russia is aiming for complete military and political victory; I predict NATO & the US will decide in the next 3 4 months if it wants to continue the war or not. I predict there are two types of a political victory, partial and complete. A partial victory would be de-NATOization of all of Ukraine and installing a puppet regime; complete victory would be the same, as well as getting sanctions lifted and the UN to rubber stamp border changes.

I predict Russia is unlikely to win a complete victory in the next 5-10 years, but a partial victory anytime after the next 4 months up to another 2-5 years. Also, I predict it may be possible to get the UN to rubber stamp border changes in the next 2-5 years, without getting the EU & US sanctions lifted. So I predict there's even an intermediate step between a partial victory and a complete victory.

I predict the only thing dragging the war out is NATO and the EU's suicide mission, which is a wild card. I predict Russia can maintain the fight as it's going right now for another 15 months. And I predict NATO right now, nor in the next 2-5 years will be ready for war with Russia, And I also predict the only thing that could cause my predictions to go haywire are idiots like Jake Sullivan, who recklessly and needlessly can cause a nuclear war. RobSGive Peace a chance 17:19, July 8, 2023 (EDT)

And I predict Russia is unlikely to accept the US offer for a "frozen conflict" ala the Korean peninsula so the US can save face, call it a draw, and withdraw. The US is committed now, and it's gonna get its butt kicked short of nuclear war. Alternatively, the US can admit defeat, withdraw sanctions, apologize, and accept the treaties Putin & Lavrov offered in December 2021 before NATO decided to go on another murderous rampage. RobSGive Peace a chance 17:25, July 8, 2023 (EDT)

So there, I spelled out in a little more detail what the polite Prof. Mearsheimer means when he's speaking to students or in other public venues. RobSGive Peace a chance 17:28, July 8, 2023 (EDT)"

Key point: RobS, we will see how accurate your predictions are. Conservative (talk) 13:27, August 10, 2023 (EDT)

User: Conservative's 2nd response: Richard DeLotto on Peter Zeihan

Richard DeLotto on Peter Zeihan:

I have been following Peter Zeihan’s work since the early days of STRATFOR, which I subscribed to for two decades. We used their projections as part of our own focused scenario development and predictive process (My final employer did competitive/strategic/technical intelligence for information technology, focused on Pattern Recognition, Early Warning, Long View and Horizon Scanning and proprietary methods). Right now, Zeihan’s insights are extremely useful to me as a full time individual investor

Oh… I have bought multiple copies of his books over the years and given them to friends.

He seems to be a globalist who sincerely misses the Bretton Woods Era. He focuses (in my terms, not his) on inertia, scarcity and constraints. You may disagree with the prominence he gives certain data streams, but a geopolitician is going to focus on geopolitical factors.

He corrects his work in public, and you can see his content evolving in his books, free newsletter, and YouTubed conference presentations. I believe that he provides the same material to casual viewers as his paying customers— though new material in conference pitches is tailored to the needs of the specific audience.

PZ uses easily-checked publicly available data and conventional understandings of history and economics. Slides are attributed. Everything I have seen of his seems to be white-sourced, with no shadowy “reliable sources”. He has a rigorous methodology that is masked by an easy communications style... my wife and I both did far too many pitches at far too many conferences for far too many years and look on his stuff with awe. I don’t think he often “shows his work”, but you can get a glimpse of the tool set in his former STRATFOR colleague Marko Papic’s Geopolitical Alpha: An Investment Framework For Predicting The Future.'

I hate to say it, but it looks like his Disunited Nations thesis is playing out right in front of our eyes.[1] Conservative (talk) 13:38, August 10, 2023 (EDT)

User: Conservative's 3rd response: Miles Negrete on Peter Zeihan

"I think he’s rather reliable, more than I am.

He correctly predicted the Ukraine War, which I thought wasn’t going to happen due to the close ties that Russia had with a Europe that was really, really behind the idea of “no more wars of territorial expansion”.

He correctly predicted the ratcheting up of tensions between China and Taiwan.

He correctly predicted the inflation we are currently experiencing.

He’s changed his predictions based on new data. For instance he moved up the timetable for the Chinese demographic collapse due to reports coming out that China overcounted on their recent census.

The only thing I think he’s really wrong about is that he says America has such good geography that there is no way we can really screw it up. I think he has only been around amateur idiots, mere morons, while I have known true Masters of the Craft of Stupidity. Nothing is beyond these people."[2] Conservative (talk) 13:43, August 10, 2023 (EDT)


See Conservapedia Guidelines:Spam. Thank you. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 13:45, August 10, 2023 (EDT)

An additional point

Personally, I like prediction markets and a team of the right kinds analysts (See the article The Peculiar Blindness of Experts. See the material about a team if integrator foxes vs. specialist hedgehogs) making predictions about the future rather than experts and I offer some resources and reasons why below.

Experts and predictions

Prediction markets

Election betting odds

And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? - Is.8:19 RobSGive Peace a Chance! 14:42, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
Analysts are not prophets. Even someone with a little knowledge about geopolitics would know this. This is why I don't bother reading your content about politics or religion. Conservative (talk) 14:50, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
(ec) I just realized the difference between our two approaches and why we keep talking past each other: I'm seeking to understand the world we live in now and how we got into this mess based on our past, whereas you are seeking diviners and fortune tellers about the future because (a) pride, (b) fear, and (c) lack of faith in God. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 14:51, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 14:54, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
Actually, it is because you are a ideologue who looks at the world through your pet and dearly loved hypotheses and pretend contrary data doesn't exist. You also often see things in all or nothing terms with no nuance. Also, I am seeing you cite sources where the sources disagree with you. That is why I have no confidence in your work. Recently, I caught you twice doing this with sources. It's very dishonest. Conservative (talk) 14:59, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
Oh really? I thought you didn't read my crap. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 15:03, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
This was earlier. Also, User: SamHB recently criticized your sourcing and said it was dishonest as can be seen HERE. Conservative (talk) 15:08, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
I'm devastated. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 15:10, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
I'll admit, with the recent wave of totalitarian censorship from your globalist friends, it has become more difficult often to cite sources, so sometimes readers will just have to take my word for it and attribute a statement or claim to me. Usually within 24, 48, or 72 hours I can find a source that squeaks past the censors, but there may be a few instances where, for the purposes of historical chronicling, the reference ultimately will have to be cited to me as a contemporaneous witness and analyst. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 15:13, August 10, 2023 (EDT)

RobS wrote: "I'm devastated".

People who do dishonest things such as making things up and faking sources often have a lack of remorse. So in some cases, it is best to avoid them as much as possible and not take them very seriously. After all, “You show me your friends, and I’ll show you your future.” - John Wooden, American basketball coach.

Next, I am not a globalist and you have yet to offer proof that I am.

Bye. Going to work on a project where the fellow people are honest and do not cling to their pet hypotheses like a spoiled little child. Conservative (talk) 15:25, August 10, 2023 (EDT)

(ec) There are many such terms and idioms I've had to invent over the past few years that today have become common knowledge, for example Biden family corruption, which pre-dates the 2020 election.
If you are not a globalist, why do you hold the Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs magazine, Peter Zeihan, Ian Bremmer, Karen Daiwsha (to name only a few), in such high esteem? or refute the work of John Mearsheimer in essays while pretending to respect him? RobSGive Peace a Chance! 15:31, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
Incidentally, John Mearsheimer is not a wizard that peeps, as you so disgustingly and repeatedly disrespect him and his work. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 15:35, August 10, 2023 (EDT)

RobS, genetic fallacy. And I have been consistently for small government and a small defense budgets to defend the homeland. In the past, you argued for a large defense budget.

Also, you are an egotist/narcissist so it's pointless to talk to you.

I cite RobSmith saying: "You are and I'll put it in the Acknowledgements. If everything goes right, hopefully it'll stand next to the Dialogues of Plato, Socratic method, and Machiavelli Discourses in classrooms someday. nobs 00:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)"[3]

Your work wil stand next to Plato's work? Really? One of the reasons I never want to talk to you again is your vain and egotistical statements. And because you lack self-awareness, you are totally oblivious to your high degree of narcissism.

And why do you have a high opinion of Niccolò Machiavelli and the Machiavelli Discourses? I will tell you why. It is because you a very dishonest. Conservative (talk) 15:41, August 10, 2023 (EDT)

(ec) More incidentallies: Zeihan did not "predict" the Ukraine war, Gorbachev and Yeltsin did if NATO crossed the Oder-Neisse Line; Zeihan did not predict ratcheting up Taiwan tensions, Eisenhower did in 1952. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 15:41, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
You have never read, Dawisha, Huntington, Solzhenitsyn, or Machiavelli, so it's impossible for you to really comment on or me to discuss with you. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 15:43, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Zeihan&oldid=2113523"